Thursday, May 12, 2011

Ron Paul Would Not Approved The Mission To Kill Osama Bin Laden

Ron Paul has stated that had he been President, he would not have approved the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound: 
"I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"
Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."
"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"
Ron Paul is absolutely wrong in his assertion that Pakistan would have cooperated with the Americans in capturing Osama bin Laden. America intentionally kept Pakistan in the dark about the mission because the goverment couldn't be trusted with the information and were not told about bin Laden's death until after the attack on the compound.  
There is good reasons for not giving Pakistan advanced notice of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. The evidence strongly points to the fact that Pakistan was helping Osama Bin Laden. For example, we know that a senior Pakistani Army major lived next door to Osama Bin Laden. In fact, the city is filed with many people who work for the military which is not surprising since there is a major military academy just a few hundred yards down the road from Osama's home.
There are additional facts that suggest Pakistan knew he was there. We know that he compound was specifically built for Osama Bin Laden in 2005.  Some people think he may have been living in that compound in Abbotabad for as long as three years or as short as six months. According to bin Laden's wife, she was in that house since 2006. And that house didn't blend in with the community of Abbottabad. It stuck out like a sore thumb. It was the only mansion in town. Moreover, that house had high walls topped with barbed wire.
Let's not forget the fact that Bin Laden was found to have money and some phone numbers sown into his clothing which indicates he was ready to escape at a moment's notice. Perhaps he was prepared in case someone from Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) tipped him off that the U.S. was coming for him.
While there is room for reasonable debate whether or not Pakistan was protecting bin Laden or if it was rouge elements within the military and intelligence community that was protecting him. However, it doesn't matter if there was official or unofficial assistance given to Osama bin Laden. The bottom line was someone or a group of people with considerable power was shielding him from the United States. Its clear that had we given advanced notice that we were comming to get Osama bin Laden, that advanced notice would have been passed on to bin Laden. 
There's also another good reason why the United States did not cooperate with Pakistan. There's evidence that Bin Laden's terrorists may have penetrated Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and military for years.
Even if we accept Pakistan's claim that it didn't know about it but that rouge elements were unofficially protecting bin laden, they couldn't be trusted since their military and intellegience agencies were corrupted by spies for bin Laden. 
Its clear that the information would have gotten out one way or another and Osama bin Laden would have been tipped off about the incoming raid on his house.
Ron Paul is incorrect that we didn't respect our own laws or international laws. Anne Bayefsky debunks that claim:
The United Nations still has no definition of terrorism. Standing in the way of a universally-agreed definition are the 22 members of the Arab League and the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Each of these groups has signed on to an “anti-terrorism” treaty that represents the culmination of their agreed ideology on the subject. The Arab Terrorism Convention, for example, exempts from its idea of terrorism everything from suicide-bombing to slitting the throats of 3-month old babies under the umbrella of “all cases of struggle by whatever means…against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination.” 
As a result, on May 2, 2011 the Security Council issued a unanimous presidential statement on Bin Laden’s death which was very careful to “reaffirm…other applicable international counter-terrorism instruments.” After all, Council members currently include a representative of a terrorist organization, since Lebanon’s government is controlled by Hezbollah. 
As a result, Ron Paul is absolutely incorrect that we didn't follow our own laws or laws of the United Nations. There are no clear international laws on the issue of terrorism since Security Council doesn't have any firm definition of terrorism. What laws were we to follow Mr. Ron Paul?  
Anne Bayefsky also points out that one of the Council members includes a representative of a terrorist nation. However, she forgets to mention that while some nations are controlled by terrorist organizations, there are other Arab nations who sit on the Security Council who use terrorism to accomplish its foreign policy goals.
In the end, Anne Bayefsky explains that the mission to take down Osbama bin Laden was permissable under U.S. and international law: 
Under the laws of war, combatants are a “legitimate” target for attack. A protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines a legitimate military target as one “which…makes an effective contribution to military action and whose…destruction…offers a definite military advantage.” This description fits Usama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s killing was, therefore, a justifiable homicide and incurs no liability. There was no necessity that the Navy SEALs must have intended to arrest him or make an effort to capture him alive.
As a result, its hard to take Ron Paul seriously when it comes to the issue of foreign policy. Ron Paul's foreign policy position of isolationism/non-interventionism is not a conservative position. Its a far left position. Its a position that Ron Paul and Barak Obama have in common. Yet, Ron Paul isn't the only Republican who has far left beliefs on foreign policy.  Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson also share these same beliefs. 
It is the same position that far left liberals like Barak Obama have. 
Its also hard believe that Ron Paul can seriously protect our country if he were President United States. He voted against the Terrorism Information Awareness bill which provides funding for offensive and defensive military programs that would help combat terrorism. He also voted against the Project BioShield Act of 2003 which was an initiative to research and develop vaccines, medications, and other countermeasures to combat biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological bioterrorism threats to our national security and speeds up the process of authorization for funds for research and purchase of agents to combat bioterrorism.
In the end, Ron Paul positions on  foreign policy and national security will never be taken seriously by the general public or by conservatives. The more Ron Paul speaks out on foreign policy and national security, it decreases America's trust in him because it will decrease their ability to feel safe and secure with him as a leader.
In the end, Ron Paul and those who share his views on national security and foreign policy are unrealistic and naive in their perspective of how the world works. It is also dangerous. And very foolish.

1 comment:

  1. I really think that Barrack Obama would defend this country better than this old coward, to think that he must really be the worst possible candidate....